tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16489312.post113448729287569636..comments2023-07-11T06:13:17.615-07:00Comments on A Thing So Small: Quakers Taking God SeriouslyRosemaryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11867502577351038428noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16489312.post-7915443724993847752013-09-21T03:28:17.964-07:002013-09-21T03:28:17.964-07:00It’s going to be ending of mine day, except before...It’s going to be ending of mine day, except before ending I am reading this wonderful post to increase my experience. <br />website designing companyhttp://www.zinavo.conoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16489312.post-25857867067380207792011-10-20T23:20:47.827-07:002011-10-20T23:20:47.827-07:00It by no means ceases to surprise me how, using sm...It by no means ceases to surprise me how, using small additional digging online, it is possible uncover several most special web. It’s irritating that substantially pages similar to this, aren’t ranked on the top rated once i search with bing concerning the web, Ive added you to definitely certainly certainly certainly certainly certainly certainly certainly certainly certainly certainly certainly certainly certainly certainly certainly my faves, I in addition possess a buddy, that could truly value these particulars, so ill ship her, a web site for the write-up, within the same. I am specific they’ll really enjoyment by using this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16489312.post-1138614379320168622006-01-30T01:46:00.000-08:002006-01-30T01:46:00.000-08:00Came across your blog surfing del.icio.us- pretty ...Came across your blog surfing del.icio.us- pretty interested in your take on science and God. i'm from a different Christian tradition but I'm really enjoying a bit an insight into a tradition I know practically nothing about. Given your field of study, I'm sure you've come across <A HREF="http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml" REL="nofollow">Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution</A> by<BR/>Theodosius Dobzhansky- to me this is a really tidy summary of a (Russian Orthodox) Christian view of science that doesn't involve contradictions between the two. I particulary appreciate his argument that it is blasphemous to suggest that God includes vestigial features, homologous structures etc. that suggest evolution to be true, to mislead some of us.Peter le Rouxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08442811474029232715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16489312.post-1137009336919818522006-01-11T11:55:00.000-08:002006-01-11T11:55:00.000-08:00Sarah - I've just discovered your blog, which made...Sarah - I've just discovered your blog, which made me laugh out loud - especially that chap who spoke about Quakers not really being very spiritual - I was reading this at last Meeting and its still with me; 'There is a principal which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in different places and in different ages had different names; It is however, pure, and proceeds from God. It is deep and inward, confined to no forms of religion nor excluded from anywhere the heart stands in perfect sincerity. In whomsoever this takes root and grows, of what nation soever, they become brethren.' John Woolman. <BR/>Birkenstock? The most Quakerly woman I know wears the cheapest shoes she can find - aren't those Birkenstocks the most expensive?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16489312.post-1135340926604040022005-12-23T04:28:00.000-08:002005-12-23T04:28:00.000-08:00So many comments all at once! Johan-I hadn't seen...So many comments all at once! <BR/><BR/>Johan-<BR/><BR/>I hadn't seen that post before, but now I have. I often wonder how much our on-line blogging and God-talk really does or could constitute a trend back towards a more spiritually rich Quakerism. <BR/><BR/>Martin-<BR/><BR/>I really liked that post of yours, and was tickled by the timing between that and this one. I was also so excited about the verdict coming out early (it was due in January)- like a Christmas present! Or maybe that's just because I've been following this so closely. :-) I was really surprised to see Sheila Harkins among the ID folks, too. Just a reminder to me that not all Quakers are cut from the same cloth . . .<BR/><BR/>I am bound to post something long about creationism and evolution in the near future, I just couldn't say when . . . but it's something I spend so much time pondering that it can't help but overflow into a post.<BR/><BR/>Zach-<BR/><BR/>Hmmmmmmmmmm. I must ponder more.<BR/><BR/><BR/>-SarahRosemaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11867502577351038428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16489312.post-1135311537689456192005-12-22T20:18:00.000-08:002005-12-22T20:18:00.000-08:00If I were summoned to court and asked to take an o...<I>If I were summoned to court and asked to take an oath, would my refusal to do so (because I would refuse) be coming from my deepest convictions, or from an irrelevant adherence to an old tenet that has little worth except in its ability to make me Feel Like a Quaker?</I><BR/><BR/>My own feeling on that personally (I've thought about what would I do in that situation) is that if you have to ask, the answer is probably no... I think that refusal to swear oaths (for example) comes not from an intellectual line of reasoning as to why oaths are in a sense untruthful (which is what I think it is for most Friends, a line of reasoning), but from a very visceral aversion to anything that has any taint of untruthfulness. If the idea of swearing doesn't fill us with a gut-level revulsion, I think we probably aren't 'living in that power that takes away the occasion for all oaths' (to rewrite a well-known phrase). And if we aren't, why claim we are? I think it would be more Quakerly to admit that's the case, swear the oath, and keep working towards that higher kind of truth-loving-ness.Zach Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03081152597455627366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16489312.post-1135301684081340602005-12-22T17:34:00.000-08:002005-12-22T17:34:00.000-08:00Hi Sarah: sorry to only see your post now. It made...Hi Sarah: sorry to only see your post now. It made me think about some Intelligent Design questions that have been running through my head in the last few weeks, ones which you almost address here. See today's post <A HREF="http://www.nonviolence.org/martink/so_dont_quakers_believe_in_intelligent_design.php" REL="nofollow">So Don't Quakers believe in Intelligent Design</A> for my questions. I'd be interested to hear how you reconcile the religion/science (seeming?) divide on this.<BR/>Your Friend, MartinMartin Kelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06999620933648327663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16489312.post-1135151714642413402005-12-20T23:55:00.000-08:002005-12-20T23:55:00.000-08:00We've been doing some thinking along the same line...We've been doing some thinking along the same lines. I like the doughnut image; it rings true. When we Quakers brag about our beautiful doughnuts but leave out the Center, I think our spiritual teeth will rot. Christian doughnuts without the Center are no better. But they're no worse, either. To deny Christ because lots of Christians are functionally idiots and fakes and hypocrites is intellectually weak. Idiocy and hypocrisy are pretty much everywhere. Too often we compare our best to someone else's worst to gain rhetorical advantage, but hopefully in our hearts we know better.<BR/><BR/>I don't know why I run off at the mouth like this! Thanks for your web-hospitality and thanks for your good thoughts.<BR/><BR/>Johan<BR/><BR/>PS: Concerning the comment about being surprised to meet a Quaker who takes God seriously, did you see my post about Albert Fowler's Pendle Hill Pamphlet, "Two Trends in Modern Quaker Thought"? It's <A HREF="http://maurers.home.mindspring.com/2005/05/creative-discontent.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Johan Maurerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16489312.post-1135142346279114262005-12-20T21:19:00.000-08:002005-12-20T21:19:00.000-08:00Ooooh...Sometimes I like to say that Quakerism is ...Ooooh...<BR/><BR/>Sometimes I like to say that Quakerism is Christianity distilled - just the essence, nothing really original, but nothing superfluous either.<BR/><BR/>Another Friend I know says she knew she was in the right place when she first came to Quaker meeting because of all the sensible shoes.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, there are a lot of doughnut Christians - and I think their dough is a lot more bitter than most Quakers - that have remembered all the peripherals like in what order to take communion and all the points of the Nicene Creed but have missed the heart - the love those that hate you part, the equality of slave and free, male and female, Greek and Jew part, the sell all you have and give to the poor part.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for this post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16489312.post-1134940911435725562005-12-18T13:21:00.000-08:002005-12-18T13:21:00.000-08:00good reflection piece here -- and good witnessing ...good reflection piece here -- and good witnessing to the fellow who thought quakes couldn't do spiritual.<BR/><BR/>As for the doughnut stuff -- it tends to be the glue that holds us together on those occassions where we argue about the important stuff. That's where the Christian doctrine of Incarnation becomes helpful -- reminds us that the human stuff is needed to make the spiritual stuff manifest.nathan's shepherdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17333649679313721590noreply@blogger.com